So I'm reading Acts this month and it was so fascinating to confirm all his views on the book. It's indeed the book where the Holy Spirit worked through the apostles. It's so amazing to see that they were so in tune with the HS that all they did was exactly what they were told. So powerful, humbling and beautiful.
Yes ,Amen .That is why , I am proud of being Catholic Christian .church has the authority to forgive the sin .Gospel is the reflection of the experience of the church father .when I was little ,we had no bible in our house but we were under the blessing of the church.I am pleased of this talk .yes yes and yes .I am highly pleased of this .
Jesus started one church and said it would last FOREVER God told David, “I will build u a throne and it shall last FOREVER.” “Thou art a priest FOREVER, in the line of Melchizedek.” Jesus said “I will be with you ALWAYS.”
Yes ,though I am Catholic ,it was not clear to me but now it is clear what is Catholic Church .thank you.catholic church has the full authority to forgive our sin .It is true that our sin can be destroyed if we come to confession .
Even the schism with the Orthodox Church boils down to a similar question: what authority does the Bishop of Rome have? Is he like any other bishop in terms of authority and jurisdiction? Does he have supremacy as Catholics claim? (The Orthodox don't deny the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, only his supremacy.) Interesting that the number one divisive issue in the Christian world is about authority.
@@daenithriuszanathos9306yes so true. It was the same with Lucifer and his fallen angels: they too rebelled against authority (God's). God has His kingdom, and in the kindgom is the King with an absolute authority. The king has his trusted Royal Steward (right hand man) whom the King gives to this Royal Steward the keys to the kingdom. Those keys not only open and close the gate to the kingdom and the Royal treasury, they are also a symbol of absolute authority. When the king is away or incapacitated, it is the Royal Steward whom runs the kingdom and makes decisions for the well being of the citizens. It is a lifelong position and upon death the king appoints a new trusted Royal Steward. This is Jesus, our King whom gave to Peter (and his successors) the keys of the kingdom, and appointed as supreme shepherd on earth, Peter (and Peter's successors) to shepherd and feed us lambs and sheep. Jesus also commanded us: Matthew 23:2-3 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do." Moses' seat (chair) is now Peter's seat (chair), the See Peter upon which the Pope sits and teaches ex-cathedra. God bless
It is certain from scripture that Simon Peter was one of the first of those whom our Lord called to be his disciples and followers, that he was a person of excellent endowments, both natural and gracious, of great parts and ready elocution, quick to apprehend and bold to execute whatever he knew to be his duty. When our Saviour called his apostles, and gave them their commission, he nominated him first in the list; and by his behaviour towards him he seems to have distinguished him as a special favourite among the twelve. Many instances of our Lord's affection to him, both during his life and after his resurrection, are upon record. But there are many things confidently affirmed of this holy man that are directly false: as, That he had a primacy and superior power over the rest of the apostles - that he was more than their equal - that he was their prince, monarch, and sovereign - and that he exercised a jurisdiction over the whole college of the apostles: moreover, That he as the sole and universal pastor over all the Christian world, the only vicar of Christ upon earth - that he was for above twenty years bishop of Rome - that the popes of Rome succeed to St. Peter, and derive from him a universal supremacy and jurisdiction over all churches and Christians upon earth - and that all this was by our Lord's ordering and appointment; whereas Christ never gave him any pre-eminence of this kind, but positively forbade it, and gave precepts to the contrary. The other apostles never consented to any such claim. Paul declares himself not a whit behind the very chief apostles, 2Co 11:5 and 2Co 12:11. Here is no exception of Peter's superior dignity, whom Paul took the freedom to blame, and withstood him to the face, Gal 2:11. And Peter himself never assumed any thing like it, but modestly styles himself an apostle of Jesus Christ; and, when he writes to the presbyters of the church, he humbly places himself in the same rank with them: The elders who are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, 1Pe 5:1. It is remarkable that you find not so much as one word savouring of the spirit and pride of a pope in either of these epistles.
@@parrisroy : You haven't answered the question. By whose authority do you make these proclamations? By your own authority? Then you are declaring yourself infallible! In your not-so-humble opinion it is the truth. Sorry, but your opinion does not count!
Al Hilford Neither does yours Al. Only the Word of God counts and is infallible. Your religion is anti Word of God. Fallible to the point of blasphemy and heresy. You just don’t have the Spirit of God in you which is why you’ll never know His Truth. You have a different Jesus, a different Spirit and a different Gospel. Just as Paul warned us about. Your opinion means nothing to me.
@@parrisroy We have the words of Jesus in the bible backing up our testimony, we have the Spirit of God sustaining His Church through generations, faithfully executing His commands "to do this (eucharist) in memory of me (real presence)". But your tradition of personal interpretation of the bible is not supported in the bible, in fact it is prohibited in 2 Pt 1:20. So you do not have authority, you are prohibited in interpreting the bible for anyone. What you have is just private judgement that is not binding on anyone or just pure lies. Because it is not based on the Word of God!
This is an excellent presentation. However, Dr. Howell engages in a pretty dramatic nonsequitur (if not outright misrepresentation) at around the 48-minute mark in an attempt to support his greater thesis. Specifically, he asserts that Clement -- the Bishop of Rome or "Pope" -- had authority to step in and correct distant churches. There are several problems here. 1) Clement wasn't "stepping in." Clement's input was invited by the church in question (as is clear in the opening paragraphs of the letter). 2) EVEN IF Clement was in fact intruding into the affairs of a distant church and thought himself to have the authority to do so, it doesn't follow that he actually had that authority. Saying or believing "I have authority to do X" and actually having it are not the same thing. (Most Papal Supremacy claims rely on exactly this kind of "I say I have it, therefore, I have it" kind of 'reasoning.') 3) Early ecumenical councils make it VERY clear that bishops do not have authority beyond their own dioceses. Rome doesn't get a free pass in this. There isn't any wording to the effect of, "all bishops have authority in their own dioceses, except for Rome, which has authority over all." The history of the first several centuries only affirms this.
Thank you for your comment Seth. It is rare today that someone is interested in the important history of the early church. I used to be Methodist, but good heavens that church has a bunch of dim witted fools that they have ordained as ministers. If those dim witted fools were to actually read some of the early church history and understand it, then they would not be running around with their diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the mind.
1. By responding he was stepping in 2. If he had no authority, others would have Told him so. 3. Bishops have authority only in their local true And it is reasonable via Mt. 16 that one bishop has all authority “whatever u loose”
@@PInk77W1: 1) You are equivocating. There is a rather stark difference between "stepping in" in the sense of answering a question that one was invited to answer and "stepping in" in the sense of walking into a discussion uninvited and proclaiming that my answer is definitive and must be followed by all on the basis of my authority. 2) You are equivocating again. There is a difference between "having no authority," and "having no authority to do X." The rest of Christianity does not deny that the Bishop of Rome has authority. It denies that the Bishop of Rome has supreme, immediate, unilateral authority over the entire church. That has been demonstrated countless times. See "Great Schism" for an example.
@@philo-aletheia 2. So show me the document where Christians told Clement he has no authority on the question at hand ? The great schism is 1/2000 yrs. that is not All the time. Even King Henry Vlll asked the pope for a divorce first, then said the pope had not the authority second. Martin Luther said the pope had authority before saying the pope had no authority. So it happens all the time is weak
So I'm reading Acts this month and it was so fascinating to confirm all his views on the book. It's indeed the book where the Holy Spirit worked through the apostles. It's so amazing to see that they were so in tune with the HS that all they did was exactly what they were told. So powerful, humbling and beautiful.
Yes ,Amen .That is why , I am proud of being Catholic Christian .church has the authority to forgive the sin .Gospel is the reflection of the experience of the church father .when I was little ,we had no bible in our house but we were under the blessing of the church.I am pleased of this talk .yes yes and yes .I am highly pleased of this .
Jesus started one church and said it would last FOREVER
God told David, “I will build u a throne and it shall last FOREVER.”
“Thou art a priest FOREVER, in the line of
Melchizedek.”
Jesus said
“I will be with you ALWAYS.”
Yes ,though I am Catholic ,it was not clear to me but now it is clear what is Catholic Church .thank you.catholic church has the full authority to forgive our sin .It is true that our sin can be destroyed if we come to confession .
No matter where you come down on it, this is THE question.
Even the schism with the Orthodox Church boils down to a similar question: what authority does the Bishop of Rome have? Is he like any other bishop in terms of authority and jurisdiction? Does he have supremacy as Catholics claim? (The Orthodox don't deny the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, only his supremacy.) Interesting that the number one divisive issue in the Christian world is about authority.
@@daenithriuszanathos9306yes so true. It was the same with Lucifer and his fallen angels: they too rebelled against authority (God's). God has His kingdom, and in the kindgom is the King with an absolute authority. The king has his trusted Royal Steward (right hand man) whom the King gives to this Royal Steward the keys to the kingdom. Those keys not only open and close the gate to the kingdom and the Royal treasury, they are also a symbol of absolute authority. When the king is away or incapacitated, it is the Royal Steward whom runs the kingdom and makes decisions for the well being of the citizens. It is a lifelong position and upon death the king appoints a new trusted Royal Steward.
This is Jesus, our King whom gave to Peter (and his successors) the keys of the kingdom, and appointed as supreme shepherd on earth, Peter (and Peter's successors) to shepherd and feed us lambs and sheep.
Jesus also commanded us:
Matthew 23:2-3
“The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do."
Moses' seat (chair) is now Peter's seat (chair), the See Peter upon which the Pope sits and teaches ex-cathedra.
God bless
Excellent collection .
Amen..
It is certain from scripture that Simon Peter was one of the first of those whom our Lord called to be his disciples and followers, that he was a person of excellent endowments, both natural and gracious, of great parts and ready elocution, quick to apprehend and bold to execute whatever he knew to be his duty. When our Saviour called his apostles, and gave them their commission, he nominated him first in the list; and by his behaviour towards him he seems to have distinguished him as a special favourite among the twelve. Many instances of our Lord's affection to him, both during his life and after his resurrection, are upon record. But there are many things confidently affirmed of this holy man that are directly false: as, That he had a primacy and superior power over the rest of the apostles - that he was more than their equal - that he was their prince, monarch, and sovereign - and that he exercised a jurisdiction over the whole college of the apostles: moreover, That he as the sole and universal pastor over all the Christian world, the only vicar of Christ upon earth - that he was for above twenty years bishop of Rome - that the popes of Rome succeed to St. Peter, and derive from him a universal supremacy and jurisdiction over all churches and Christians upon earth - and that all this was by our Lord's ordering and appointment; whereas Christ never gave him any pre-eminence of this kind, but positively forbade it, and gave precepts to the contrary. The other apostles never consented to any such claim. Paul declares himself not a whit behind the very chief apostles, 2Co 11:5 and 2Co 12:11. Here is no exception of Peter's superior dignity, whom Paul took the freedom to blame, and withstood him to the face, Gal 2:11. And Peter himself never assumed any thing like it, but modestly styles himself an apostle of Jesus Christ; and, when he writes to the presbyters of the church, he humbly places himself in the same rank with them: The elders who are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, 1Pe 5:1.
It is remarkable that you find not so much as one word savouring of the spirit and pride of a pope in either of these epistles.
With what authority do you say these things about Jesus' church? You are entitled to your opinion, yes, it's only an opinion. God bless you.
ben jesus
But it’s also Truth!
So what ya gonna do???
@@parrisroy :
You haven't answered the question.
By whose authority do you make these proclamations?
By your own authority?
Then you are declaring yourself infallible!
In your not-so-humble opinion it is the truth.
Sorry, but your opinion does not count!
Al Hilford
Neither does yours Al.
Only the Word of God counts and is infallible.
Your religion is anti Word of God.
Fallible to the point of blasphemy and heresy.
You just don’t have the Spirit of God in you which is why you’ll never know His Truth.
You have a different Jesus, a different Spirit and a different Gospel.
Just as Paul warned us about.
Your opinion means nothing to me.
@@parrisroy We have the words of Jesus in the bible backing up our testimony, we have the Spirit of God sustaining His Church through generations, faithfully executing His commands "to do this (eucharist) in memory of me (real presence)".
But your tradition of personal interpretation of the bible is not supported in the bible, in fact it is prohibited in 2 Pt 1:20. So you do not have authority, you are prohibited in interpreting the bible for anyone. What you have is just private judgement that is not binding on anyone or just pure lies. Because it is not based on the Word of God!
This is an excellent presentation. However, Dr. Howell engages in a pretty dramatic nonsequitur (if not outright misrepresentation) at around the 48-minute mark in an attempt to support his greater thesis. Specifically, he asserts that Clement -- the Bishop of Rome or "Pope" -- had authority to step in and correct distant churches. There are several problems here.
1) Clement wasn't "stepping in." Clement's input was invited by the church in question (as is clear in the opening paragraphs of the letter).
2) EVEN IF Clement was in fact intruding into the affairs of a distant church and thought himself to have the authority to do so, it doesn't follow that he actually had that authority. Saying or believing "I have authority to do X" and actually having it are not the same thing. (Most Papal Supremacy claims rely on exactly this kind of "I say I have it, therefore, I have it" kind of 'reasoning.')
3) Early ecumenical councils make it VERY clear that bishops do not have authority beyond their own dioceses. Rome doesn't get a free pass in this. There isn't any wording to the effect of, "all bishops have authority in their own dioceses, except for Rome, which has authority over all."
The history of the first several centuries only affirms this.
Thank you for your comment Seth. It is rare today that someone is interested in the important history of the early church. I used to be Methodist, but good heavens that church has a bunch of dim witted fools that they have ordained as ministers. If those dim witted fools were to actually read some of the early church history and understand it, then they would not be running around with their diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the mind.
1. By responding he was stepping in
2. If he had no authority, others would have
Told him so.
3. Bishops have authority only in their local true
And it is reasonable via Mt. 16 that one bishop has all authority “whatever u loose”
@@PInk77W1:
1) You are equivocating. There is a rather stark difference between "stepping in" in the sense of answering a question that one was invited to answer and "stepping in" in the sense of walking into a discussion uninvited and proclaiming that my answer is definitive and must be followed by all on the basis of my authority.
2) You are equivocating again. There is a difference between "having no authority," and "having no authority to do X." The rest of Christianity does not deny that the Bishop of Rome has authority. It denies that the Bishop of Rome has supreme, immediate, unilateral authority over the entire church. That has been demonstrated countless times. See "Great Schism" for an example.
@@philo-aletheia if someone asks me anything
I can remain silent and not step in
Or I can answer and step in. It’s not difficult
@@philo-aletheia
2. So show me the document where Christians told Clement he has no authority on the question at hand ?
The great schism is 1/2000 yrs. that is not
All the time. Even King Henry Vlll asked the pope for a divorce first, then said the pope had not the authority second. Martin Luther said the pope had authority before saying the pope had no authority. So it happens all the time is weak
It seems to me that thre is no continuity between Benedict XVI and Francis.
Yea "it seems to you" ...is just your opinion....
When Martin Luther broke from the church
The pope was NOT too good.
The next pope was
St Pius V.
He was VERY good
Him Bike maybe we’ll get a new Pope that’s good then!
Junelle Salmon popes come and go
But Jesus guides them all
Him Bike Yep, “Have I not chose you all yet one of you is a devil” sums it up pretty well.
Holy Ghost you modernist
You mean Casper the ghost what does modernist really mean I know what it means but do you know what it means Casper
Amen...